Changing our Minds about Nonduality

[Mellowmarsh]

This is a very thought provoking video about how some of us may have given radical nonduality more attention than it deserves for anyone interested. 
 

 

 

[Hyperion]

The most deceptive religion / philosophy is the one that tries to convince you that it is neither a religion nor a philosophy.

I have often said that what we call a spiritual pointer is simply the expression of a relative perspective that is the opposite of whatever perspective the recipient of the pointer is currently stuck in. The moment you confuse that opposite (supposedly more "spiritual") perspective for absolute truth, you have now traded in one delusion for another.

"Don't confuse the finger that points at the moon for the moon itself", as they say in Zen.

[Wilhelm44]

@Mellowmarsh  I am curious, what has changed for you personally with regards to this topic ?

[Mellowmarsh]

@Hyperion I know and see what you mean, and I agree with your overall principle.

 

However as stated in the video. Nonduality is an empty principle that cannot be lived by actual life forms identified with the concept of “human being” albeit illusory being.  This illusory sep self still has to be recognised as being very real.

 

 

[Hyperion]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

@Hyperion I know and see what you mean, and I agree with your overall principle.

And what principle would that be?

[Mellowmarsh]

6 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

@Mellowmarsh  I am curious, what has changed for you personally with regards to this topic ?

Nothing has changed for me personally, because I’ve always been grounded firmly in the reality of qualia.

Even as I grasp the idea of an illusory sep self the whole point of the illusion is to appear separate else reality would just be one infinitesimally indescribable indistinguishable clump of nothingness.

[Mellowmarsh]

5 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

And what principle would that be?

Your theory. The one you post about on this forum.

[Hyperion]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Your theory. The one you post about on this forum.

Ok, cool. So, how is the following riposit:

10 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Nonduality is an empty principle that cannot be lived by actual life forms identified with the concept of “human being” albeit illusory being.  This illusory sep self still has to be recognised as being very real.

...at odds with what I am saying?

[Wilhelm44]

14 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Nothing has changed for me personally, because I’ve always been grounded firmly in the reality of qualia.

Even as I grasp the idea of an illusory sep self the whole point of the illusion is to appear separate else reality would just be one infinitesimally indescribable indistinguishable clump of nothingness.

Appearances continue as they do. I was just wondering if you yourself had any disagreement with a specific radical nondual teaching as such ?

Edited 42 minutes ago by Wilhelm44

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Hyperion said:

Ok, cool. So, how is the following riposit:

...at odds with what I am saying?

It’s not at odds. I don’t know what you mean by at odds. All I’m saying is that we can only have a theory as to the true nature of reality, knowing also that reality is not a theory outside the conception of theory.
 

It

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Appearances continue as they do. I was just wondering if you yourself had any disagreement with radical nondual teachings as such ?

No, I don’t disagree with the teachings as such, I see the teachings for what they are, insofar as no word can describe radical nonduality, or, every word describes radical nonduality. 
 

We can only theorise as to the nature of reality, and can also grasp the illusory nature of knowledge is only ever pointing to it’s own illusion.

 

 

[Wilhelm44]

6 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

No, I don’t disagree with the teachings as such, I see the teachings for what they are, insofar as no word can describe radical nonduality, or, every word describes radical nonduality. 
 

We can only theorise as to the nature of reality, and can also grasp the illusory nature of knowledge is only ever pointing to it’s own illusion.

 

 

Then what was the motivation for posting this video, ie what stood out for you ? (Im sorry, i find it hard to listen to Tim Freke for some reason)

Edited 31 minutes ago by Wilhelm44

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Then what was the motivation for posting this video, ie what stood out for you ? (Im sorry, i find it hard to listen to listen to Tim Freke)

I think Tim makes a very valuable and overlooked point that’s why. He even admitted he could be wrong about stuff he once believed in. He’s even trashed all his books if I recall correctly. It’s all explained in the video, if one is really interested, one must watch the whole video from start to finish. I happen to agree with the message the 3 people are talking about.

If you find it hard to listen to that’s fine, you’re already living from your own truth, that’s unique to you. No problem.

I listen to almost everything these days. I’m just an ever curious type in that respect. 

[Wilhelm44]

Just now, Mellowmarsh said:

I think Tim makes a very valuable and overlooked point that’s why. He even admitted he could be wrong about stuff he once believed in. He’s even trashed all his books if I recall correctly. It’s all explained in the video, if one is really interested, one must watch the whole video from start to finish. I happen to agree with the message the 3 people are talking about.

If you find it hard to listen to that’s fine, you’re already living from your own truth, that’s unique to you. No problem.

I listen to almost everything these days. I’m just an ever curious type in that respect. 

Okay, I'll give it a listen 🙂

[Mellowmarsh]

Tim came up with the phrase UNI-individualism. Which I thought sounded less severe than no self. 

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Okay, I'll give it a listen 🙂

Okay… report back with your opinion if you do manage to get through it. 😬 But it’s still fine if you can’t, no problemo. 

[Hyperion]

26 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

It’s not at odds.

Cool, just checking  

PS: Don't let anyone tell you that "nonduality cannot be described". Of course it can be described. In fact, the word itself is already the description:

Nonduality = that which does not include / is the opposite of duality.

So it very obviously is a relative perspective (aka. philosophy), regardless of how much nondualists generally like to profess that it isn't.

 

Edited 16 minutes ago by Hyperion

[Wilhelm44]

4 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Okay… report back with your opinion if you do manage to get through it. 😬 But it’s still fine if you can’t, no problemo. 

It's good to be challenged, thank you. I started with Jim, then Emerson, maybe this will be more integration, cheers.

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Hyperion said:

Cool, just checking  

PS: Don't let anyone tell you that "nonduality cannot be described". Of course it can be described. In fact, the word itself is already the description:

Nonduality = that which does not include / is the opposite of duality.

So it very obviously is a relative perspective (aka. philosophy), regardless of how much nondualists generally profess that it isn't.

Yes, as already stated up thread, every word describes.

As I’ve said before we cannot know the absolute we can only theoretically describe in theory relatively speaking.

Of course everything known is relative to the absolute because we are finite story tellers. So I’m in agreement with you. 

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm44 said:

It's good to be challenged, thank you. I started with Jim, then Emerson, maybe this will be more integration, cheers.

Yes, thanks, it’s literally just a discussion about integration that’s all. It’s not necessarily in conflict with the overall principle of nonduality. It’s actually a very refreshing conversation.